Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,197

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story
ELH

Portland, OR

#156303 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You actually know no such thing, the copy that MassResistance PICKED UP at the school event had been left on a table with numerous other publications. There is no evidence that ANYONE other than their mole even saw, let alone took one and as for it being passed out at the youth center, we only have your word on that.
Aside from Prof Malevolent, is well know for being 20 years behind in his "research", no one pays any attention to MassResistance any more. Like most lunatic fringe organizations MARes has been completely ignored by credible media outlets. Hell, the hacks at FOX "news" haven't done a story on the group for over 4 years.

They try to stir things up by cooking up these little homosexual dramas but the fact is that the groups membership has dwindled to a handful of extremest nut jobs and a this point Brian Camenker is pretty much running a one internet man show. He's almost as big a joke in MA as professor Malevolent is here on TOPIX.
Brian Camenker wrote:
Homosexuality is unnatural and you have to have— just like you HAD TO HAVE the Jim Crow laws to keep the races apart—you have to have these laws and diversity trainings and constant propaganda to keep it going."
Camenker making an ass of himself on the Daily Show SEVEN YEARS AGO:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-novembe...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/...

It's little wonder that our Professor Malevolent is a fan of this twisted fella.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156304 Aug 25, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us start with the Rorschach test then, big fella. One of your "gotcha" points. Do you know how one administers this test or are you simply happy parroting the complaints of someone you don't know?
I'm going to go an idiot parroting another idiot...and that if the old fella was ever given a Rorschach he would see penis hat, penis costumes, assless chaps and little black books on every card.

and definitely some penis shaped floats!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156305 Aug 25, 2012
In defense of calling gay unions marriage, the assertion is made that children are not a requirement for marriage.

A unbelievably stupid statement! It amazes me that people have the audacity to even make it.

The first indication of how stupid it is the fact that it comes from gay couples that have ZERO potential to
procreate.

The second is the reason no one makes that demand. The 'demand' for children isn't there because the likelihood is so strong, it is and has always been assumed in marriage.

Its like someone asserting for gays to be in a gay union they are required NOT to have children. Why bother with such a unnecessary question?

Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.
Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!
ELH

Portland, OR

#156306 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
We know of two instances where the publishers handed the booklet out to underage boys...
Hey boys, Is this fella ever going to post anything here that doesn't source back to some long forgotten claptrap from a bunch of loser desperate for media attention?
ELH

Portland, OR

#156307 Aug 25, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
We're supposed to take the word of a failed e-book author on who is a quack? Keep repeating your link, Gary. It makes you look rather challenged.
The poor fella is "debating" a paper written in 1957...

I think we are supposed to KEEP LAUGHING.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156308 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Okay, if pointing out that you were quoting an unqualified hack with a painfully obvious anti-gay agenda wasn't sufficient to demonstrate just how bad of a source you were citing, I'm more than happy to help you look foolish. <quoted text>She used matched pairs, something not possible with a random sample, that should have been your first clue that you were relying on someone who knew less than you.
(Yawn)

In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
<quoted text>Absolutely shocking, it was 1957 dear, she needed assistance to find openly homosexual men to take part in the study and the Mattachine Society was one of the few groups that could help in that process. Another invalid whine from a fool.
Indeed, and after finding out the purpose of her study the Mattachine Society was only to happy to hand-pick study subjects for her.

Of course in your homosexual mind this is fine. In the world of science, however, it totally invalidates her story.

The wonder is this silly woman didn't grasp this.

Oh, and we're real sorry she wasn't bright enough to grasp it.
<quoted text>A grand total of TWO. They were still heterosexuals and you are still relying on an unqualified hack.
Learn to read. The number was three -- which represents 10% of her study population of heterosexuals.
<quoted text>In the opinion of a retired English professor the results were botched, I bet you can hear me laughing from out here in the middle of Kansas. Hooker may not have had experience in Rorschach testing, but she utilized experts who did.
Wrong again -- here's why:

"...Critics of Hooker's Rorschach results make at least two points. First, they question her ability to administer and score the test. As an animal researcher until the time she undertook this project, she obviously had logged comparatively little experience in administering Rorschachs, a delicate and highly complicated task in which the clinician gently and obliquely elicits spontaneous responses. Some authorities in the field maintain that, under ideal circumstances, a more qualified expert would have explored many avenues Hooker failed to note and would have found out many things Hooker missed -- including indications of the pathology of the homosexuals.
A second criticism of her methodology is the lack of "blindness" in the administration of the Rorschach. Ideally, given the nature of the results sought, the test should have been administered under circumstances in which both interviewer and subject were unaware of the purpose of the test. In the case of the Hooker study, both she and her subjects knew what she was striving to prove -- and both she and the homosexuals had a vested interest in proving the hypothesis that homosexuals were not necessarily pathological.
<quoted text>He points out a couple of minor rounding of figures as errors and you fell for it.
She actually gets every calculation in her study wrong. Here's a couple of them:

"... Turning to the table upon which she lists the age, IQ scores, and education of all 60 subjects, a careful reader finds that the figures neatly arranged in columns contradict her summary. While she says the age range for all subjects is 25-50, the chart indicates that the youngest subject is 26 and the oldest 57. The figures on the table indicate an average age of 35 for the homosexuals and 37 for the heterosexuals -- different averages than the ones Hooker gives.

In summary, the woman was a dingbat rat-tester gang activists got to front for them.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156309 Aug 25, 2012
ftabmember wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Did you know that 40% of the APA voted to RETAIN homosexuality as a MENTAL ILLNESS. Yes, 40% would not succumb to the intimidation and bullying of the homosexual groups. Brave people indeed, to stand up for the truth while others chose to reject it.
-----
Just when the poor fella starts to feel all alone in the world a mysterious troll happens by here to agree with him.

And I see "KiMare" is here with more of "her" brilliant and original posts.

http://weheartit.com/tag/middle%20finger%20pr...

It's good to know that the asspuppet AND batshit crazy "communities" are BOTH so well represented here on TOPIX.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156310 Aug 25, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Just when the poor fella starts to feel all alone in the world a mysterious troll happens by here to agree with him.
And I see "KiMare" is here with more of "her" brilliant and original posts.
http://weheartit.com/tag/middle%20finger%20pr...
It's good to know that the asspuppet AND batshit crazy "communities" are BOTH so well represented here on TOPIX.
I just wanted you to feel welcomed back.

Did you miss me???

Smile.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#156311 Aug 25, 2012
KiMare wrote:
In defense of calling gay unions marriage, the assertion is made that children are not a requirement for marriage.
A unbelievably stupid statement! It amazes me that people have the audacity to even make it.
The first indication of how stupid it is the fact that it comes from gay couples that have ZERO potential to
procreate.
The second is the reason no one makes that demand. The 'demand' for children isn't there because the likelihood is so strong, it is and has always been assumed in marriage.
Its like someone asserting for gays to be in a gay union they are required NOT to have children. Why bother with such a unnecessary question?
Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.
Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!
Well, your reasoning certainly is "childish".

:)
ELH

Portland, OR

#156312 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology.
INFLUENTIAL "gay activist" plotting to tricking the APA...

Only the passing of over half a centuries time AND a deluded mind working overtime could turn the gay socialist movement/the Mattachine Society into a seeds of a "new" conspiracy theory...

Hey fella, You better call a press confrere ASAP and prpbably start a petition to have the APA reconsider their 1957 decisions!

But I suggest that you get back on your medication first.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156313 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
In summary, the woman was a dingbat rat-tester gang activists got to front for them.


In summary, the structure of this (alleged) sentence explains a lot about why your (self published) writing career is going the way it is.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156314 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Of course in your homosexual mind this is fine. In the world of science, however, it totally invalidates her story.
The "world of science" seems to be in UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that heterosexuality is NOT superior to homosexuality and that the REAL problem is ignorance and bias against gays.
BTW the "arguments" that are the bases of nearly all your posts, like homosexuality being "disgusting" or a "choice" or a "sin" or a "mental illness", have no basis in SCIENCE.
Prof Marvel wrote:
The wonder is this silly woman didn't grasp this.
Oh, and we're real sorry she wasn't bright enough to grasp it.
There is no evidence that your claims about "gay rights activists" choosing Hoopers subjects and the "silly woman" is dead.

But if you want to find out why a researched might not "grasp this" maybe you should google Dr Robert Spitzer?

As I recall YOU were once very found of quoting from and agreeing with Dr Spitzer's (now) completely debunked "study"...

Oh dear...it appears that you weren't bright enough to see that you were being manipulated. Silly man.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156315 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Learn to do deep research and you'll uncover information like this
Poor Professor Marmalade, The sad part is that you really think you are ONTO something when it's so obvious to everyone else that you're just ON something.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#156316 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
We know of two instances where the publishers handed the booklet out to underage boys, one is the Brookline high school, the other was Youth on Fire drop in center.
Combined or individually that establishes who the booklet was created for.
But let's play with this a little. You tell us it was a mistake the booklet appeared on a table at the high school.
Walk us through that. Show us how that 'mistake' might have happened.
You believe that the booklet was handed out.....you, however have NOT given anything specifically that proves it was......and MassResistance is NOT a reliable source!!!
ELH

Portland, OR

#156317 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
But let's play with this a little. You tell us it was a mistake the booklet appeared on a table at the high school.
Walk us through that.
Option #1:
Those porn cruising jiz monkeys at MassResistance took time off form their circle jerk and wrote and published the book and later planted it because no one was paying attention to them any more...

Option #2:

They made the whole thing up.

Hell, anyone who has ever looked at their crazyass website can tell that they pull most of the content from their own asses and cut and paste the rest from other equally suspect nutjob type sites.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156318 Aug 25, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, your reasoning certainly is "childish".
:)
oh, that's deep.

Smirk.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156319 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had a nickel for every time I've shown the "gay is not a choice" argument is a pile of crap I'd be as rich as Donald Trump.
I think you mean to say "If I had a nickel for every time I've posted MY OPINION of the "gay is not a choice" argument..."

Just imagine what you accomplish if you could have all the TIME you have wasted endlessly re posting your OPINIONS over the past few years back?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#156320 Aug 25, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!
ARE YOU FRUCKING FOR REAL? This nursery rhyme from like the 1950's is your reasoning that EVERY HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE WILL PROCREATE......what a joke!!!

Beside, the names could be any names......Jack and Jill went up the hill.....not sitting in a tree!!!

I know plenty of opposite-sex married couples who for whatever reason aren't, can't or simply choose not to have children.....and your claim that Gay and Lesbian couples HAVE NO POSSIBLE POTENTIAL to naturally procreate is TOTALLY irrelevant to the right to marry the person of one's choosing!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156321 Aug 25, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
ARE YOU FRUCKING FOR REAL? This nursery rhyme from like the 1950's is your reasoning that EVERY HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE WILL PROCREATE......what a joke!!!
Beside, the names could be any names......Jack and Jill went up the hill.....not sitting in a tree!!!
I know plenty of opposite-sex married couples who for whatever reason aren't, can't or simply choose not to have children.....and your claim that Gay and Lesbian couples HAVE NO POSSIBLE POTENTIAL to naturally procreate is TOTALLY irrelevant to the right to marry the person of one's choosing!!!
That really hit 'home', didn't it?

Something so simple and ageless. Something you not only said as a girl, but something you taught your own children.

The expectation of what life brings. Or more specifically what marriage means.

I think the Jack and Jill who went up a hill fetched a pail of water. Oh, and they were brother and sisters. Couldn't marry each other, just like gays.

This Jack and Jill were not brother and sister. As is most often the case, they got married and had children.
ELH

Portland, OR

#156322 Aug 25, 2012
KiMare and Professor sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G!

First cam love,

then cam marriage

Then came... OMG!!!! you have a penis AND a vagina???

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stalker case leads to lawsuit against St. Bruno... (Feb '13) 1 hr Clean up 1,289
Ashton Kutcher opens up about being a dad, and ... 5 hr tatuwalker1 1
Common Core is DESTROYING your kid's education ... 6 hr Sam Toliver 2
MEX-TEX-CA DRUGS to YOU! 7 hr ILLEGALS - DRUGS ... 1
Suge Knight, Katt Williams Arrested for Robbery 9 hr Sterkfontein Swar... 1
'General Hospital' Spoilers - Oct. 27-31, 2014 ... Oct 27 amber elim 1
I like Beverly Hills as a NZer Oct 17 Michael K Mair 1

Beverly Hills News Video

Beverly Hills Dating
Find my Match

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]